Agenda - Council - 01/26/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I C. Compatibility With Other Governmental U~its' Plans The Plan appears basically compatible with the plans of adjacent governmental units and the affected school districts. D. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework The land use goals and policies contained in the Anoka County Plan closely parallel those of the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework and thus are largely consistent with the MDF. Policy II on page LU-21 within the Anoka County Plan encourages the use of Green Acres or agricultural preserves as a land holding device within the urban service area which'is inconsistent with MDF. Although it may be appropriate to continue agricultural uses in some areas in transition from rural to urban areas, it must be recognized that Green Acres or agricultural preserves are intended as longer preservatio~ measures. As such, they are inappropriate in transition areas and may actually hinder the orderly expansion of needed urban areas in such instances. The Anoka County Plan uses Metropolitan Council forecasts for population, hQuseholds and employment as a basis for planning. 2. Metropolitan Investment Framework ae The Comprehensive Plan contains separate CIPs for parks and transportation which contain some, but not all of the information required by the statutory definition of a CIP. Each CIP should be for a prospective five year period, should include a statement concerning the need and the financial sources for each improvement, and an estimate of the financial impact that each improvement will have on the County. be The CIP should include a schedule of the annual debt service payments on the existing outstanding indebtedness. This information is necessary for the County Board and the citizens to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the County. It is also necessary for financial planning purposes of the overlapping jurisdictions. 3. Housing Anoka County's housing stock includes nearly 58,810 units; with a 1980 population of approximately 202,310. The County exRects that the population will grow to 250,000 by the year 2000, and may require construction of approximately 15,000 new housing units by that time. One of their goals is to accommodate this increased population. The County also believes that a variety of residential choices in the cost, size, style and density of ho~sing are important, as well as the maintenance and preservation of older residential neighborhoods. 'Re plan also. states that the County believes